Blaeys.3102

The newest guild hall is especially problematic. It is nearly impossible to find a flat area big enough to place decorations in a meaningful way. It wasn't well thought out.

It is past time to get rid of this mechanic. It was a decent concept that just doesnt work in game. It is less challenging than the actual bounty it replaces, it gets in the way of achievements and, if someone triggers it and runs away, it stops the bounty from respawning on the board.

When HOT launched, Anet said they were planning to add a port to a bigger version for guild halls as well.

Then we never heard about it again.

> @"Icemanfrost.5428" said:

> > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > @"Icemanfrost.5428" said:

> > > > @"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

> > > > > @"Icemanfrost.5428" said:

> > > > > I'm very new to the game and I don't quite know how to get that cool VIP tag I see on some people, what does VIP offer, and how do I become one?

> > > >

> > > > Hi. I don't think I've seen a VIP tag, but I have seen guilds named VIP, so if you're seeing something like Fred Player.1234 [VIP] then that's their guild tag, and not a special designation.

> > >

> > > Ah. Yes, I've seen the VIP in purple letters. I assumed it was the person. I'm really new. I just that tag on my first day. Someone ran past me with it. It looked nice.

> >

> > The purple letters intrigues me. I thought it would be green. Hmmm...

> >

> > In any case, Icemanfrost, don't hesitate to ask questions here. We'll all try to help you, and I want to be sure to say "Welcome to Tyria" and wish you well in your journey!

>

> I found it very interesting myself. I remember it because the letters stood out. It wasn't in green and it was just the "VIP" in purple. I thought it said "VIP player" Maybe it was the zone. It asked me "do you want to go to a more populated area of the same map?" it randomly synced me in a more high population place of the same map. It interested me. Maybe I was mistaken though. Thank you very much. It's great to be here. :)

Are you running the new Windows 10 version and, if so, do you happen to have any of the three new colorblind settings turned on? I am colorblind. Green and purple are two of my problem colors and I know the Windows settings alter them significantly.

You can check by going to your settings and looking for the "Color and High Contrast" tab to see if the "Apply Color Filter" is turned on.

1. Dissolution of the guild support team. Guild focused play has always been the appeal of the game for me. The idea that they do not actively support that is ridiculous.

2. Anet's short development attention span. Minigames (target range/bar brawl in Divinities Reach), guild missions, dungeons, legendary weapon quests, Mister E, Vikki & Momo - these are just a few of the things Anet started and then just decided to stop supporting out of the blue (In the case of minigames, there are still NPCs guiding you to these non-existent events).

3. Backpedaling on community-focused game mechanics and direction. When the game launched, they made a big deal about avoiding specific things in the game in order to foster a friendlier, more community focused atmosphere in the game. All of those have been completely tossed out the window for the sake of a few marketing buzz words geared to bring more hardcore players into the game.

I can pretty much guarantee something like this would sell very well - even if there are people who may not find it their style.

To paraphrase "Cute Sells."

I would likely buy it. It would hide my belly fat.

While the cost is definitely an issue, even when you do get enough hedges, you are unlikely to be able to do a decent maze. The decoration cap will stop it.

Anet needs to give guild halls some really attention and love - and especially look at the new one. Since there are almost no flat areas, we figured we would use the "floor" decorations from raid wing 4 to make some - only to find that the cap stops anything even halfway decent.

I know Anet said they dissolved their guild team, but here is yet again another example of why that decision makes no sense. Not sure what they were thinking.

Changes cannot come fast enough - and even then, I fear, they wont be enough.

My guild grouped up to do bounties yesterday. We triggered seven bounties in Sandswept Isles - **FOUR** of them were ambushes (more than half). After that, we just got fed up and went to a POF map where the ambushes don't exist.

Again, this mechanic has run its course. Don't just reduce its occurrence - take it out of the game entirely. It isn't fun. It isn't challenging (less so than the actual bounty, in fact). All it does is make what should be a fun group activity unnecessarily frustrating.

Not sure I think it is needed for individual use, but I would love to see something like this implemented into guild halls - a way to move large groups of guildees to select points around Tyria.

Or maybe something a little more direct - a crafted scribing consumable that connects a portal in the guild hall with a one time use flag that a guild leader or officer can drop out in the world (that remains for about 10-30 minutes before despawning).

It would make it easier for guilds to do things together.

Based on what I've heard both in game and online, you would probably be better off just taking the Awakened Ambushes out of the game altogether. They are:

* not challenging (less challenging than the bounty they replace 95% of the time in fact),

* get in the way of achievements

* are not really fun/unique (basically just a cookie-cutter dynamic event), and

* are just plain frustrating when you are expecting a bounty boss.

Additionally, it seems that there are many groups that just run away when they spawn - which leave the event there even though the bounty it replaces is still on the board - locked in perpetuity and delayed even longer for those wanting to fight that particular boss.

Bounties are one of my favorite parts of the game (not a replacement for needing new guild missions, but at least something guilds can do together), but the ambush mechanic, while a decent idea on paper, just doesn't work in the current game.

This event seems like the perfect candidate for a new adventure (catch x number of fish in x amount of time). Seems like a missed opportunity to make it repeatable and semi-competitive/more fun.

Every new adventure doesn't have to be a race or bland collection event.

Again, a real missed opportunity - centered around a system that (like many others) they implemented and have shown little interest in supporting long term.

It's good to see that, even here on the raiding subforum, there is noticeably greater desire for multiple difficulty modes in raiding - and that the conversation continues as new people realize the potential fun it could offer to the game.

As I've said many times, Anet will only be able to ignore this for so long before realizing the mistakes they made with this game mode. The current model is unsustainable long term, doesn't fit with the rest of the game and, I believe, is actively detrimental to community morale in many situations.

As someone in a guild that enjoys doing things together in the open world, the current model is perfect. It gives us a lot of choices when looking for something to do.

I love that they are adding new max level maps every couple of months.

> @"jeffreyscottburke.9856" said:

> We can generate clones like crazy now.

The problem is the only conditions we can reliably spread via clones are bleeds via sharper images (and that only happens on crits) and confusion from shatters (which, as discussed prolifically in this thread, is horrifically bad in PVE following the recent change).

A change made primarily for PVP (which is obviously the justification) has pretty much invalidated the professions primary mechanic (clones and shatters) in PVE - to the point where Gaile is even having to come on and warn people about trying to communicate directly with developers too much on the issue. People are worked up.

This is something that they need to fix sooner rather than later - and something they need to openly and frequently update us on. It really is in a state that is detrimental to the health of the game for some players.

This happened to us twice on Monday, to the point where we almost gave up on retriggering the bounty again.

I can confirm with 100% confidence that this has been bugged, off and on, for well more than a year. My guild has reported it dozens - probably 100s across multiple people - of times at this point.

I know Anet considers guild mission content as second rate/deserted content, but they need to at least have an intern look at the bug reports once or twice a year.

There are some players who still care about guild missions (and there are many other guild missions still busted as well - including the Obsidian Sanctum mission, pretty much every race and many pvp missions - all of which I know my guild has reported many times over).

.

> @"zealex.9410" said:

>>

> The change to confusion in pvp was very much welcome and it made sense both balance wise and flavour wise. In pve tho you are correct.

Very true, and probably the root of the issue. They have to start paying more attention to how changes affect all game modes when they do this stuff.

While Gaile is 100 percent correct - this conversation should take place primarily in these forums, it is good to see the community isn't letting up on this issue. In the past few years, Anet has taken a battleship approach to design (move deterministically and only turn when absolutely necessary).

While that makes development sense much of the time, there are times when quicker adjustments are needed to avoid minor or even major screw-ups (eg, you wouldn't pilot the battleship into an iceberg). This is one of those times.

The change to confusion Is nonsensical no matter the direction you look from. It was never meant to be a situational ability, or it wouldn't have been used as the primary condition tied to shatters nor would it have been placed on the autoattack for main hand weapons (Mesmer scepter and, more recently, the axe). Additionally, as others have noted, it was never intended for spikey damage either - enemy attack patterns almost always call for heavy spike damage to stunned targets. Finally, since the beginning, they have intended for Mesmers to be the primary class bringing confusion - to the point where it was even part of the early profession descriptions and dev videos. Surely they never intended for Mesmers to only be useful in a small percentage of fights.

Again, people need to keep making noise (which shouldn't include PMing devs in their off hours, of course). Far too often, we see these kinds of changes persist for weeks or even months without being addressed - unless the community makes enough noise to force the issue.

We need to make that noise.

Here is where the logic falls down on this change -

The stated intent of confusion is to make it a hex that punishes the enemy for using abilities. I'm all for that kind of gameplay.

The first problem is, if it is meant to be a situational hex, why is it included on the AUTO ATTACK of multiple main hand weapons. Are we supposed to hold our auto attack until the boss begins a string of quick attacks? There is no real logic or situations where playing smart would make a difference.

Next, if the vast majority of PVE enemies primarily spam the same attacks, then there is no real "counterplay" at work - or, in the case of most raid and fractal bosses, where they hit VERY VERY slowly, then even the modified confusion is going to do next to nothing on most enemies when compared to other conditions.

The solution is obvious - if you want a hex like this, make it a utility skill or limit it on the 4 or 5 attack of the weapon. Then you can make the kind of meaningful changes that involve "punishing the enemy."

Now, if the reality is what I (and most others) suspect and this was a change designed for PvP, that's fine (there is opportunity for smart counterplay there) - but then it should have - of course - been limited to pvp.

The kind of ability you discuss here sounds good on paper, but doesn't really work the way you describe in practice. All you have done is cripple viable condition dps builds with the vague promise of fixing in the future.

That is bad design and shows a disconnect with the community/game. This needs to be fixed sooner rather than soon*.

> @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> Please retain the whole message when copy/pasta-ing:

> Moving Confusion to have condition damage contribution ticks made it a damage-over-time condition in addition to its 'hex' style punishment of using skills. We needed to make a choice as to whether or not the condition was going to be used as spammable DOT, or rarer/shorter, with more potency. We've decided to push Confusion to be burstier and once again focus on punishing skill activation. The reason for keeping any dot component is to message that you're under the effects of the condition, so you can be informed of it without looking at your buff bar.

> With that said, we'll be moving weapons like Mirage's Axe toward Torment, rather than Confusion, as soon as the process allows.

With all respect and bypassing the tired jokes/deflections about the word "soon," the process needs to "allow" this to happen much sooner rather than later (as in, don't make us wait an entire quarter to get our condi DPS builds back).

The damage over time not benefiting from condition damage is obviously a change that was made for the sake of PvP and WvW. There is zero reason this should have been implemented in PVE. As theorycrafters and early testers have already shown, it cripples many potential mirage condi dps builds (and likely any other that relies on confusion in any way).

The problem is obvious - confusion varies greatly based on the enemy you are fighting, but you cant realistically change from a condition to a non condition build between pulls. Players count on some consistency in pve, and this change makes the condition the opposite of consistent/reliable.

This needs to be fixed sooner rather than forcing the change on the community for a full quarter.

Yet another example of why they need to balance PvP and PVE completely separately.

The marionette would be much better as a world event or bounty style encounter. The enjoyable part of that fight came from seeing the open world community come together to tackle the challenge.

Still, its been a really long time. I doubt they plan to every revisit it, sadly.

Now a Scarlett's Airship fight (the one against the giant hologram) is something I would like to see as a new fractal. It was a shame that fight only existed for a short time.

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"obastable.5231" said:

> > > @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > >We are planning to give the community some lead time before this goes live. Organizing yourselves will take time and we want to allow that to happen. Transfers are something we can monitor better with this system and respond to more quickly. Since worlds should be relatively even the amount of transferring to the higher population worlds before they become full will be less. This should prevent guilds and alliances trying to use transferring to stack servers more difficult. We're open to discussion about this though and the "fullness %s" are things be looking at and adjusting if needed until we find a good spot.

> >

> > Your wording indicates that this is largely finished and nearly ready to deploy. Also the willingness to discuss it with the community and having such concrete answers to questions.

> >

> > Will our next re-link at the end of February possibly be our last, or will we get one or two more after that? :astonished:

>

> We have just entered the early stages of development and this will take some time to complete. I was just stating that we have already recognized the need for extra time to organize when the changes eventually go live.

So is the implementation a foregone conclusion?

There are a lot of people who think this is a very bad direction to go. You need to take that into account.

> @"Honest John.4673" said:

> > @"Blaeys.3102" said:

> > While this will likely make the game mode more competitive and give hardcore players a more balanced experience, I think it will also likely push your more casual WvWers out completely. I know dozens of players that enjoy 1-2 days a week in WvW alongside their more hardcore friends. With limited space in alliances, I don't see them making the room for those more casual players - creating a have/have nots dynamic in the game mode. So, while it may seem like a good thing for some, it may be the end of the game mode for many others.

> >

> > It's also worth noting that those same casual players are unlikely to be as active in this subforum as the more hardcore WvWers. Anet really needs a better way to get their feedback on this issue.

>

> They could simply join those alliances while they can if they cared. But since they're casual, seems like, by definition, they don't care as much. And I suppose heaven forbid hardcore be matched up against hardcore and casual be matched up against casual, that might make for more competitive matches, and I guess you can't have that in a competitive gamemode, right? And woe is me, I won't get to carry all the casual leeches, I'll miss them one-pushing in fights and contributing nothing to the group. But I suppose the casuals are being oppressed into being have-nots by the more hardcore players too, right?

You're assuming there will be room in those alliances for more casual players, when we all know that is unlikely to be the case.

This isn't about carrying anyone. The current system allows for a variety of experiences throughout the week - shifting between different groups (of friends) that you enjoy playing with. That is something many experience in the current system that will not be there if they make this change. It is about balancing friendships, casual play and hardcore competitiveness.

Again, if the system had been implemented day 1, it would have worked well. But, people have been working within these communities for five years now, bringing the nuance and diversity of playstyles together in ways that simply will not be possible with the proposed changes. It would be extremely irresponsible of Anet to push these changes live without taking into account the damage they will do along with any potential improvements. I know a lot of people that will be affected by this change in ways that will, most likely, push them out of wvw completely (me probably being one of them).

While this will likely make the game mode more competitive and give hardcore players a more balanced experience, I think it will also likely push your more casual WvWers out completely. I know dozens of players that enjoy 1-2 days a week in WvW alongside their more hardcore friends. With limited space in alliances, I don't see them making the room for those more casual players - creating a have/have nots dynamic in the game mode. So, while it may seem like a good thing for some, it may be the end of the game mode for many others.

It's also worth noting that those same casual players are unlikely to be as active in this subforum as the more hardcore WvWers. Anet really needs a better way to get their feedback on this issue.